tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News February 5, 2013 1:00pm-2:00pm PST
[ sniffs ] i took dayquil but my nose is still runny. [ male announcer ] truth is, dayquil doesn't treat that. really? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus fights your worst cold symptoms, plus it relieves your runny nose. [ breathes deeply ] awesome. [ male announcer ] yes, it is. that's the cold truth! i just served my mother-in-law your chicken noodle soup but she loved it so much... i told her it was homemade. everyone tells a little white lie now and then. but now she wants my recipe [ clears his throat ] [ softly ] she's right behind me isn't she? [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. >> shepard: a couple in arkansas won a $1 million prize on a scratchoff and the next day they win another 50 grand on another ticket in arkansas. here's the lucky pair with the pair of fat checks. steve and terry weaver say they could not believe the first win, let alone the second. the husband said he was initially scared to claim the
winnings because he thought lottery officials would make him take a lie detector test. they plan to invest their wings winnings. >> what a day for dow. a bounce back from a big surge in u.s. home prices. they're increasing sides that europe's economy is getting better. got some good earnings reports from some of the big companies. no matter what they want you do believe -- for today, at least -- the economy is looking up. i'm shepard smith. see you back here tonight on fox report. you'll be all right. [screaming] >> well, like the sequel to a 1950s horror film, only is this fly going to stick? welcome. i'm stewart in for neil cavuto. remember this, that fiscal cliff deal, huge amount in tax hikes.
not much in the way of spending cuts. are we about to see the sequel? the president is calling on congress to pass another quick fix to avert those automatic spending cuts he originally signed off on, kicking in march 1 income, and this includes new tax revenues. the former south carolina senator jim demint says we have seen how the movie ins and it's not go. okay, jim, spell it out. more tacks and not so many spending cuts. what's the result? >> you have to scratch your head. the federal government will receive historically high tax revenues this year, yet we've double spending. it's a spending problem. the president is not willing to cut spending at this point. he continues to talk about more taxes. even though he promised that this sequester would never happen and if he got his tax
increases he would cut spending. >> what are the run republics going to do? we have the president calling for more taxes. what should their response be? >> well, republicans passed in the house last year what they called a fix of the sequester, which they found cuts in other areas, reasonable cuts, to replace the spending for our defense system. it was a very reasonable bill. they passed it. harry reid never even tack it up and the president didn't acknowledge it. but there are good ways to fix this problem without gutting our military. but we can't good back to where we were, where we're just adding all this spending back, along with the president's tax increases. >> you're saying basically the republicans should say, no, we're not going to do this, no more taxes? >> absolutely not. stewart. i'm not going to speak for the republicans anymore. but just speaking as a conservative, we have to get the president and the congress focused on, how can we cut spending and put ourself on a
path to a balanced budget. if we don't start talking about a balanced budget and getting serious about it, you know what's going to happen and this movie will not end well. >> the congressional budget of office today protected the state of the economy. they said two things. number one, the deficit this year is going to come in lower trim dollars, the first time in the obama years. and they also said we're only goal going to great growth of 1.4%. they're saying if you cut spending, you will cut the deficit. if you raise taxes, you will cut the deficit. they're saying the exact opposite to you. >> doesn't make sense. i don't think the government is going to collect all the new revenues they're protecting because when you start taxing investors, small businesses, they tend to cut back and don't
have the profits to pay taxes on. the presidentes distracting from the real conversation, stewart. we have to cut spending. there are many areas of the government where we duplicate other areas, where there's wasteful spending. we need to move some things back to the states and need to make a commitment to balance our budget within ten years. if we do that, we see our markets and our economy improve almost overnight. >> quickly, jim, do you predict dealt disaster if you raise taxes? >> i think our deficit will good up. that's going to cut a big hole in our economy so tax revenues will dry up. i think our economy is very delicate right now. businesses are tired of the uncertainty. if the president keeps talking tax increases, i'm worried about what that that will de. >> the president elect of the heritage foundation. >> with the nation's debt mounting, new fears america's
credit rate could go be slashed again. and now this. attorney general eric holder announcing a lawsuit against standard & poors. the suit, which seeks $5 billion in damages, claims s&p's high rating on risky mortgage investments brought the financial system to the brink of collapse. why just s&p? why not other rating agencies? no. it is just s&p. the same firm that had the temerity to downgrade our debt. critics crying foul, claiming the move is nothing more than political retallation. is it? we're on it with fox news legal analyst mercedes and fox business net wish are melissa mercedes, you first. do you think this is political payback for the downgrade? >> undote -- undoubtedly. there will several credit agencies involved. credit agencies led to the fiscal life. they didn't say s&p. there's moo moody's, all of
these provided their opinion on toxic mortgage bundle and led the collapse. >> that same question was posed to a justice department official today. let's listen to what he had to say. >> why is there only a suit against s&p and not all the issuers mentioned in the various deals in your complaint? >> again, we do believe it was fraud, which is why we've charged s&p with that. and again, as regards any other institution or any other individual, we are just not in the position to make any comments on where we are in those regards. >> do you want to chime? >> but with a lawsuit you put in all the parties you suspect may be responsible. you don't pick and choose. this is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one so talking about civil fraud and damages, bring in the parties who key responsible. s&p, mod h moodiys.
>> i want to get the substance of the charge. mel lisa, you read the documents. does the justice department have a case? >> air stupid e-mail and song at the heart of this. you have an analyst who 'twas dumb enough to put it down in an e-mail. they immediate up a song to burning down the house, talking about the mortgage market, and september it around and said i'll go to your cube and perform it for you. there's the smoking gun saying the market is overheated, they know that this isn't -- they suspect this isn't going to work out. >> one analyst send as joking e-mail. >> the analyst d in the document he talks about what he knows and it foreshadows everything that is coming. so agree that all the rating agencies are to blame. the model doesn't work, you're paying a rating agency to come in and make the rating. there's a huge conflict of interest here. >> let me read you the statement put out by standard and poors.
s&p reviewed the same subprime mortgage data as the rest of the market, including u.s. government officials, who in 2007 possibly state -- problems in the subprime market appear to be contained. basically we're not guilty. we did the same thing and you're picking on us. >> exactly. that's why people are saying there has to be something more to this. >> is it possible that this suit from the justice department tries to lay all of the blame for the crash of '08 on wall street? demonizing wall street? it's the bankers fault, the brokers, the insurance companies, the ratings companies, anything but politicians. >> just like the tax bubble. so easy to point at these analysts and said was their fault. the deserve 3 or 5% of the blame yes, they were wrongs they should have western people, yes they had a conflict of interest. but there are so many characters to blame. there's everyone who about a house they couldn't afford and told they didn't have to put anything down. the house would go up in value. buyer beware. everybody was at fault here.
so to hang the whole thing onsell app s&p is ludicrous. >> the justice don't wants $5 billion. let's suppose there's a settlement. if standard and for's admits guilt they open the door to more lawsuits. >> absolutely. think about all the banks and businesses that went under. they have already come forward and these are opinions. we have a first amendment right to come forward and express opinions. you know we have a relationship with the banks. you know that -- >> an internal opinion different from their internal pin opinion, and that's how the hung up the analysts in the tech bubble and that's what it looks like they have here. it's in this document. if you look through and it see the statements, i don't know. they may have that -- >> may only not be -- >> employees,. >> we can argue legitimacy but
going to have a big impact on s&p. remember to catch money with melissa francis. >> handnot that school project. hand over your rights? before your kid's next homework assignment, you might want to hear this. and, who knew? they're fighting global warning. who knew? meet the guy here. (announcer) at scottrade, our clients trade and invest exactly how they want. with scottrade's online banking, i get one view of my bank and brokerage accounts with one login... to easily move my money when i need to. plus, when i call my local scottrade office, i can talk to someone who knows how i trade. because i don't trade like everi'm with scottrade. me. (announcer) scottrade. awarded five-stars from smartmoney magazine.
meet the 5-passenger ford c-max hybrid. when you're carrying a lot of weight, c-max has a nice little trait, you see, c-max helps you load your freight, with its foot-activated lift gate. but that's not all you'll see, cause c-max also beats prius v, with better mpg. say hi to the all-new 47 combined mpg c-max hybrid. i'm here to pick up some cacti. it should be under stephens. the verizon share everything plan for small business. get a shareable pool of data... got enough joshua trees? ... on up to 25 devices. so you can spend less time... yea, the golden barrels... managing wireless costs and technology
french president says he and vice-president joe biden share a duty to future generations to act on climate change, and biden says they agree on the need too address energy and climate change. >> i was impressed in the discussion we had relative to climate change, and i mean this sincerely, mr. president, i could have been sitting in a private meeting with president obama. he would say it in english, not french, but he said the same thing. the president pointed out there's an obligation here that extends way beyond these administrations. >> biden says secretary of state john kerry will meet with the french foreign minister on the issue. some europeans have cheered kerry's confirmation that shows the united states is ready to affect climate change. the president promised to responsible to the threat of
climate change but provided few specifics how. it's unlikely a large cap and trade will leave congress, leaving the president with the option of denying a canadian company's permit to build the keystone pipeline through the united states. the state department now under kerry's leadership has yet to approve or disease nye that pipeline's construction. >> want to battle climate change? think spring break. you heard me correctly. a new study out says you can affect global warming by cutting back on work hours like in europe. mark, just spell this out for me. your study says if we work less in america, become more like the europeans there will be less emissions and we will make global progress on climate change. it that the nature of the content of your study? >> that's right. look at the climb change as a long-term process so it's looking over the long term.
and over the long term, for example, the europeans have reduced work hours quite a bit since the '7s, were at least kept about the same, and t have about half as much energy consumption per person, and part of the reason is because of reduced work hours, and also -- >> i need to quantify this. if we went european, work like they do, which is less, would that really make a difference to the global temperature? >> oh, yeah. it would be quite large. >> how big? >> well, we looked at it in this study, over the next -- the rest of the century, we just reduced work hours in the world from the baseline by about half half percent a year, and if you look at the green house gas emissions that aren't already locked in between 25 and 50% of that could
be -- climate change could be reduced. >> let me get this straight. you so worried by climate change and global warming, that you would emulate the europeans, work less, recession, debt crisis, riots in the streets? you would -- you are really worried about climate change. >> that's quite ridiculous. what i'm saying is -- >> not ridiculous. don't just -- no they have a -- >> hold on, please hold on 0 second. >> you asked me a question. >> and i will answer your ridiculous statement. i'm a european i live in america. i like america because we work hard and we're prosperous. i don't want to be like europey they don't work very smashed where they have a debt crisis, and where most of them are in recession. i don't want to do that. not worth it. >> well, i don't want a recession. they have a recession for different reasons in europe,
because the eurozone doesn't have their own -- the countries don't have their own central park. >> they're not productive. >> most -- >> most americans that are employed would like to have actual legally mandated vacations like you have in europe, for example. we don't have any. we're one of the only developed countries in the world that has no legally mandated vacation time or even holidays that employers have to give you off. so, this is what we're talking about. >> you don't understand something here. i'm a european who has lived in america for 40 years. my experience is, americans like to work. they like to work hard. they're dynamic people, get up and go. they're winners. they don't want to sluff off and work a little less. they want a. >> they want to be productive and want to be produce produce. >> actually -- >> part of our culture. >> in the short term, reducing hours is also a solution for an
alternative to unemployment. if you're an employer and you don't have enough demand, you can either reduce hours or you can lay people off, and in germany, if you look at germany, which actually has lower unemployment than we do and actually reduced unemployment through the recession, they did it partly by reducing work hours. so, in the short run, we do see work hours is also an alternative to unemployment -- >> i'm sorry, we're out of team. >> prime programs for this right now. >> i'd really like another segment on this. thanks for joining us. if they're not burning our flag in the streets, they're billing a theme park around the compound where our troops killed bin laden. time to pull billions in aid from pakistan for good? >> at home, are students about to lose their right to work? a new school plan has our legal eagles ready to school each
>> you may want to think twice before entering your kid's masterpiece in a competition. one school district is ready to claim ownership of it via copyright law. even teachers could lose the right to their lesson plan. is that legal? attorneys camera and kisha are ready to try this. let just deal with the copyrighting of lesson plans. is that legal? >> if say it's not legal. the teachers are encouraged to be creative, encouraged to merit-based type initiatives, and if a teacher makes a lesson plan, the shoal should not open the lesson plan. >> so you say not legal. >> i think it's legal. what is going on is that
teachers are creating lesson plans, they're creating these programs and then going home and selling them, and that is becoming a really big problem. >> you know this, they'ring too this? >> it's teachers pay teachers. an online business, basically, and there's 35,000 new members a week, and they're taking these lesson plans over the course of several years and selling them to other teachers. >> the teachers themselves made those lesson plans. don't they have the right to sell them? >> it's not hurting the school district. if they're great lesson plans, moe children will be sufficiently educated. so if the teachers are profiting, i don't see the problem. >> you favor the authorities reaching out and grabbing hold of a piece of private enterprise and nationalizing. >> of course, anything that its liberal i'm for. also the issue of homework. this issue would copyright
homework. >> i'm very much against that. what do people have rights to? the children doing their homework. create these wonderful projects. the school gets to own it? that doesn't make sense. >> where do you stand? >> i think this is a great area because we're talking about children here and are the parents going to agree? we're moving into a technological age and kids are creating apps at school and then sell it to facebook for a couple million dollars because of what they learned at school? i don't think that's a bad thing necessarily. >> there's nothing wrong with that. >> the problem is our teacher and parents and students collaborating to create things at school, and then profit off of it -- >> so what i they are? >> i think we have to distinguish that from the schools actually creating masterpieces or apps versus did the children learn how to do it at school? i went to law school to be a lawyer.
the law school doesn't own the profits i make from any law firm. >> but the separation definitely needs to occur between teachers and students. i think that needs to be separate. but it's like going to work at coca-cola every day, going home, taking your notes, and then leaving coca-cola and say i'm going to sell everything i learned the public and may money of what ilash. >> how do you know the kid didn't create the app on their mac at home as opposed to the mac at school? how do you know that? >> those thing are going to be monitored by the school. i'm talking about big behavioral want them to watch the teachers, the papers the school. >> you are a big brother. you just want to reach out and squelch entrepreneurialism. >> stifle creative. the unions should take over everything. >> be serious. you really do think that, don't you? >> no, i don't think that. i think mat -- >> you want the authorities to take their piece, take it from
the individual who creates, clamp down on them, and then let the state or authority take that profit. >> i don't think you should use your school to profit off of something that you were given -- you were able to work for. >> so they used the computer at the school. is that so bad? >> stifles creative. it's not the school. i'm a big proponent of entrepreneurship, especially in this economy. >> you lose, kisha wins. sorry. simple as that. thank you very much. >> could cutting the debt be as easy as taxing something else? meet the democrat in congress who just unveiled the plan. in ameri today we're running out of a vital resource we need
smoke it? then tax it. today, democrat lawmakers rolling out new legislation to regulate and tax marijuana in states where it is legal. congressman early bloomen is behind that push. welcome to the program. >> thank you. >> is a understand the proposal it would basically add a federal tax of roughly $50 per ounce and you believe that would bring in a total of $20 billion extra revenue per year. that sounds like -- must be an awfully big pot market in america. is it that big? >> well, estimates vary but the fact is that it is billions of dollars we spend to arrest
two-thirds of a million people a year for something that half americans think should be legal, and two-thirds say let the states regulate it. stop the cost, it i can woo like lick tax alcohol, but money to reduce the deficit and we'd start having a more rational policy regarding marijuana. >> that would not bring the money in -- >> we don't know there are some estimates that suggest that the voters in colorado and the state of washington, by moving to legalize recreational marijuana use, could cost drug cartels over a billion dollars. the point is we don't know how much put we're spending a lot of money on a program that is not working, and we are losing a lot of revenue that could help reduce the deficit.
>> legalization could bring the price of pot on the street or the a legal store -- could preparing it down. if you take at the criminallality out of it and there's no penalty and you have a $50 per ounce tax, and i understand some high-grade marijuana goes for six or eight hundred dollars an ounce you bring down the cost which would encourage usage. >> i'm not certain that we have had much success in terms of discouraging it with high costs and criminal penalties, when we're told that something like 18 million people used it last month. and over half the american public has tried it. but the economics will sort their way out. the point is we're spending billions on a failed policy, and we could be collecting billions. i think the net swing would easily be over 100 bill over the next ten years. the critic --
>> savings and reducing the deficit. >> the critics say, a., marijuana is a gateway drug, encouraging other kinds of drugs. and, this legalization and tax method you have here opens the door to the legalization of other drugs. what do you say? >> hogwash. people are using it now. that is not an issue. it is less dangerous and less destructive than tobacco in terms of addictive qualities. but the point is, let the states decide. two have already done that for recreational use. 19 have done it for medical marijuana. the federal government should get rid of an absolutely unrealessic system that classifies it as being worse than meth or cocaine, and turn it from a cost to something that will help reduce the deficit. >> congressman, thank you very much for joining us today. >> my pleasure. >> there's no doubt we need
additional revenue. coupled with smart spending reductions in order to bring down the deficit. >> the president saying, no doubt, new tax revenues are coming, and repeated calls for this hikes again today. that was also echoed by by senator harry reid who on another interview on sunday suggested that, yes, we are going to raise taxes on the rich. the precise quote from senator reid was, the rich must pay their share. so they want more taxes on top of the taxes that have already been imposed january 1st on wealthier people. my next guest says he has plan to raise nearly a trillion dollars in extra tax revenues and avoid mandatory layoffs. minnesota comeman keith ellison is here to spell it out. welcome the program. >> thank you. >> i'm going to run through the proposals and get to my
question. you want to limit deductions, limit state tax decanes, close surf chap kerr k singapore, reduce meal and entertainment options, close stock option loopholes. a long list basically aimed at getting more money out of the rich. is that the thrust of your proposal? >> well, we go a little further than that we say we're going to close loopholes and fossil fuel companies likes exxon mobile and chevron. we say we're going to close loopholes for deductions for yachts and jets. we move on and we say we're going to close -- we do have a number of things we propose. closing loopholes as my colleague, paul ryan, and former presidential candidate romney said they want tote do. during the campaign those loopholes is all they wanted to talk about. if start now doing it. >> if we're going to tax the rich some more. what is fair? what is a fair tax on wealthy people? and --
>> i'm glad you asked that. >> hold on. the other question is, what impact on the economy if we raise taxes again on the rich? let's deal with the fairness question. i bring you the case of phil mickelson. a california resident. on every dollar over a million does -- dollars that herpes he has to pay 63-cents to the state and feds in income taxes. now, is 63% -- is that tax rate fair? >> well, fair calls for the the question, compared to toe what? it's fair compared to allowing somebody who is surviving on minimal income like a senior citizen to cut home heating oil, which is what we have to do if the sequester goes into place -- >> you're talk doing. >> no. no. no it's fair compared to asking poor family on food stamps to get by with less. it's fair compared to say we're going to cut on the investment that we make into innovation, medical innovation for bran new
industries to put more people back to work. it's a matter of compared to what? >> no. you have to make judgment -- >> the consecutives say -- >> 63% -- you say it fair. we are doing that. we are addressing the deficit right now by closing loopholes, as conservative candidates for president suggested we should during the election. we're doing what mitt romney said we should do. wore closing localhopes -- loopholes -- >> you made the judgment that 63% is fair. >> do you know what wic? women and children -- a program being cut by sequester. >> 63% is fair. >> i think asking phil mickelson for a little bit more money so women and children can have a meal is fair, yes, i do. i think it's fair to ask phil mickelson to put a little bit more money to make sure that we can continue to invest in
infrastructure in this country, and to make sure that foundbreaking research in medicine is paid for, to make hour that people have the basic, the college education is affordable. i think you ask phil mickelson to -- >> when you tax -- >> it's fair to ask phil mickelson to hundred us. >> when you dirk. >> at patriotic american i think he would agree. >> he does not. >> well -- >> 63 crepts on the dollar in taxes. >> the think that any american who has benefited from living in this wonderful country should be happy to make sure that all americans have a ladder of opportunity. it think that's a good thing. >> it's 75% fair? >> i'm telling you i have a bill called the balancing act. we close loopholes and we deal with the budget deficit, and we invest in jobs and infrastructure. i didn't bring up mr. mickelson.
you did. he is a nice person. my point is. >> a question of fairness. >> compared to what, sir? it's a matter of comparison. is it fair to asking women and children who need nutrition aid to go without and be hungry in the richest country in the history of the world? that's the issue. that's the question you don't want to answer. >> you say it's fair. >> i say yes. >> okay. we got it. >> are we done? i got more. >> i'm afraid dirk you don't want to talk to me now? >> no. >> okay, thank you. >> i'd love to. i'm other european came from a country which taxes people two the hilt, and and the overall effect on the economy is to slow it down dramatically and create a culture of dependence. >> let me tell you what -- >> i'm terribly sorry. i'm coming up against a hard break. i have to good. >> anytime. >> we'll be back in just a moment.
president obama just wrapping up a big-time meeting with leaders from some of the nation's biggest companies. on the table everything from item taxes and spending. goldman sachs chief executive officer was there earlier this afternoon the president went for another quick fix. he does not want the major spending cuts that sequestration would bring on march 1st. he wants a quick fix. what is your reading on that? >> i think it's quite appropriate to try to find some reasoned alternative to the kind of dooms day backstop of the sequestration. i think it's a good idea to search for a solution other than the automatic spending cuts. >> this quick fix would include more taxes on wealthy people, on top of the higher taxes on the rich we already got on january 1st.
where do you stand on more taxes on the rich? >> i think at this point, where -- the budget is moving out of control at this point, largely because of the been tax intend did tours. i think we're looking for some cutting back on the expenditure side and that's going to have to be a focus. >> do you think we'll get it? >> i think we need to get it. so i think we will and i think the president has said, and i think the implications are there, that previous offers are on the table. i haven't really seen in detail what they are put presumably the negotiating parties know what they are. so it's still a dance where everyone is waiting are for the other side to take its turn. i'm sure each side expects to give a little bit more. >> i want to ask you about reforming social security. you wrote in an op-ed in 2012. we got to reform entitlements,
rein them in. the president doesn't seem willing to do that. is that your reading of the president's policy on social security? >> i don't read what he is willing or unwilling to do i'm talking about the mathematics of it. the numbers -- won't be a social security if the income of social security doesn't match the expenditure for the social security program. that's mathematics. >> seems like politics gets in the way. the president wants to essentially raise taxes on the rich. he wants to cut spending but not by very much. he is ignoring the debt. and he is not saying anything really about lon-term social security or medicare reform. what do you make of that overall policy? >> i don't think that's policy. i think that's politics. the fact of the matter is, each of these sides in this debate can add and substract and multimy and divide the same way
i can. at it just a matter of getting it done. nobody comes to me -- i'm only used to dealmaking on wall street. i'm not -- that's the mind nor leagues compared to washington. i think each side knows that the lines are diverging forever between the revenue the government is taking in and the expenses the government is incurring particular live because of geometric include progressing entitlement spending, and those lines have to be need converge. both side have given a little bit. a little more work has to be done. >> your probably one of the most powerful investment bankers in the united states. what is your reading on the state of our finances? the president says we are doing just fine. everything is okay. the recovery is on track. does that jibe with your reading? >> i think a recovery is on track. it's not strong enough, it's not steep enough, but i think it's undeniable at this point that the economy is moving forward. we have seen housing prices bottom out.
we have seen growth, unemployment is going -- i'm sorry, employment is going up. we'd like it to be faster but it's going up. and i think a lot of the economic numbers are, if anything, surprisingly on the high side. there's some wins in front of it. it's not smooth. but it's undeniable we're entering a growth faces at this opinion. it's weak. there's some worry it could back-bend and i think that's why the central bank is keeping the extraordinary measure of going, which i frankly approve of, even though it's risky. but nevertheless i think at this point the conclusion is it's going forward. but we can't be complacent. >> earlier today the justice department filed civil suit against standard & poors the rating arc put something of the blame for the crash of '08 on. the do you feel that in some ways the administration is making wall street the villain? the only villain in the crash of '08? you are right in the middle of it. do you think you're still looked at as a villain?
>> there are a lot of legacy issues that come after the crisis. the trauma was very severe and wasn't that long ago, and people want to make sure it doesn't get repeated. i think everybody has done a very good job of pivoting and looking forward, trying to do the things that add -- that create growth, create jobs and going forward. nevertheless, we're not getting away from dealing with the legacy issues. we had some legacy issues to deal with. the rating agency does. even the government to some extent, and legislators and regulators have some legacy issues they have to deal with. budget to deal with the past and make sure we don't repeat that path in the future. so, we're dealing with this. i say the most important thing is not to spend 90% of the mind share of the legacy issues but 90% trying to bring the country forward and create a better economy and more jobs. but we're not going to run so fast to escape the legacy issue we all have to deal with.
>> ceo o goldman sack, we appreciate you being with us after a busy day on your part. thanks for joining us. now, last year, pakistanis were burning our flag in the street. now they're building an amusement park around the bin laden hideout. time to cut off the cash? for re. for re. step seven point two one two. rify and lock. command is locked. five seconds. three, two, one. standing by for capture. the most innovative software on the planet... dragon is captured. is connecting today's leading companies to places beyond it. siemens. answers. i have obligations. cute tobligations, but obligations.g.
i need to rethink the core of my portfolio. what i really need is sleep. introducing the ishares core, building blocks for the heart of your portfolio. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal.
>> osama park. >> bin laden land. who needs disney world. >> is it my 30 million? >> they say, no, the tourism department is going to appropriate the money. but in fact we with them $2 billion a year. >> they're celebrating -- i adababad. >> it's going to beck disney world for them and also be a shrine. the government of pakistan has puffed him up. we're hated in pakistan. why? because the government, political leaders, trash us, even though we give them billions. >> so the hard question -- >> can't believe this. >> i can believe it. do you think we should keep paying them on political grounds? >> no. >> that we need them as an ally? >> no. i'm all for foreign aid but i want to get something for it. its better to identify prepared
than kill enemies. we gave pakistan $2 billion a year to find bib bin. did they ever find him? no. they were in the finding bin laden business. if they ever found him they were out of business. they wanted the gravy train to keep going. i think we make a huge mistake when we give a country money no stringed attached, and then if we think about cutting it off, the argument is, they'll get mad at us. we can't possiblily cut it out. the tail wags the dog. >> if we cut them off, the argument is they collapse totally -- and that a distinct possibility -- or become a training ground for terrorist. >> but the aid doesn't make that much difference. it's note going to not happen because we give the money. i was with an american aid worker when the pakistans had floods a couple of years ago, and the united states gave them by far the largest contribution to deal with that. when mitt with the pakistani foreign minister and -- he said,
that was crumbs off your table, as if to say it wasn't enough. i asked an aid worker, whoa do we get no credit when we're the big donors. chinese didn't give them at all. >> she said the u.s. aid workers would not have of have dared saying they were from america. that we have been a tacked. >> i want to talk about something that north korea is doing. roll tape. ♪ >> right. that video, nuking america, cheering. what should do about it. >> i don't think we should be suckered into buying this horse game. everytime the north koreans come to us and say, we'll stop doing
what -- we need a little aid, and everytime we fuel for -- fall for it. the definition of insanity, continuing to do the same thing. north koreans are important because the nuclear weapons they're making they're going to sell to iran. >> thank you. i will see you tomorrow morning and every weekday at 9:20 a.m. eastern on the fox business network. tonight on fbn, fake ingredients found in our food. is the food in your fridge safe? watch out. the five is next. captioned by closed captioning services inc. sends a check. ok. [ voice of dennis ] silence. are you in good hands? [ male announcer ] you've reached the age where you don't back down from a challenge. this is the age of knowing how to make things happen. sowhy let erectile dysfunction get in your way?
talk to your doctor about viagra. 20 million men already have. ask your doctor if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take viagra if you take nitrates for chest pain; it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. side effects include headache, flushing, upset stomach, and abnormal vision. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. stop taking viagra and call your doctor right away if you experience a sudden decrease or loss in vision or hearing. this is the age of taking action. viagra. talk to your doctor. if we took the nissan altima and reimagined nearly everything in it? gave it greater horsepower and class-leading 38 mpg highway... advanced helights... and zero gravity seats? yeah, that would be cool. introducing the completely reimagined nissan altima. it's our most innovative altima ever. nissan. innovation that excites. now get a $199-per-month lease on the 2013 nissan altima. ♪